It’s always the fallout that gets ’em. Celebrities too often seem to have the idea that admitting a mistake will diminish their luster, so that an initial small error becomes compounded with denial and evasion afterwards. The latest tarnished star: Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Tyson made a small mistake: in a couple of talks, he falsely quoted George W. Bush. Several people scrambled to track down the juicy quote, didn’t find it, and pointedly pointed this pointy fact out to him, which in Tyson’s words, went like this:
When eager scrutinizers looked for the quote they could not find it, and promptly accused me of fabricating a Presidential sentence. Lawyers are good at this. They find something that you get wrong, and use it to cast doubt on everything else you say. Blogosphere headlines followed, with accusations of me being a compulsive liar and a fabricator.
NO. That’s not how you respond. Allow me to help out, Dr Tyson. Here’s how it should go:
Appreciate the assistance with improving your accuracy.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.
A brief explanation is appropriate.
Human memory is fallible, and I clearly confabulated and misattributed the quote.
Admit and apologize.
I was wrong, and retract that comment.
Promise to correct the behavior (this is important, and note, if you continue to do the same thing in the future, you’ve really screwed over your reputation.* Sincerely change).
I won’t use that quote in the future.
See? Not hard. Keep it short. Keep it simple. Keep it clear. Move on. Critic is either satisfied, or looks petty if they keep harping on it. But jeez, you were wrong, as all of us mere humans are now and then, acknowledge it and do better.
Otherwise, congratulations: you’ve just given a group of conservative religious morons who already despise you a hammer to bash you with, and bash you accurately. The extended dodge just gives more ammunition to the critic, which he can use appropriately (to find more examples of errors, and use them to accuse you of being fast and loose with the facts) or inappropriately (as this critic does, to start quoting theology and use your evasiveness to prop up idiotic arguments about god). Either way, you’re doing yourself, and the rest of us, no favor.
*That would be the Duane Gish approach, who repeatedly had factual errors in his presentations pointed out to him, but would then blithely continue using them in subsequent presentations. Creationists can do that because they don’t have a reputation for honesty, anyway. Don’t be Duane Gish.
Your source on this calls Tyson’s comments a fake apology. I’m not sure I buy that. It’s a good bit better than a classic notpology. I admit, the lines you’ve chosen to quote here tarnish his statement a bit, but he also said this in the statement:
Well, he promises to change how he references the quote, but to still use it to point out problem with religious extremism. So maybe not the best choice, but definitely a change. I’d like to also see him promise to research quotes a little bitter and be more cognizant that his memory is as fallible as anyone’s. But I don’t think this piece is a fair characterization of Tyson’s comments. He should have admitted his mistake earlier. He could have been more graceful in accepting correction. He could have dropped that defensive first paragraph. But defensiveness is as human as fallible memory. He has owned and admitted and apologized for the mistake. And I’m not sure how I’d have reacted if faced with attacks from the right wing noise machine.
I agree with @ 1 gussnarp, I think Dr Tyson did explain and apologized, and I don’t think we have any reason to think it wasn’t an honest apology…
My english sucks, sorry for all those “think”s there…
tierra de antilopes:
Your English looks fine to me. Everyone gets word repeat syndrome now and then, happens to me all the time. :)
The Federalist? Why not link directly to Tyson’s post (which is contained in the Federalist article)? Here it is in full
Partial Anatomy of My Public Talks
September 29, 2014 at 9:47pm
Objectives
My goal in almost all public appearances is to communicate the passion of science & discovery. My talks are drawn from a small catalog of about a dozen topics that range from science literacy in America and the world, to space exploration, to the cosmic perspective, to the search for life in theuniverse. No matter the size of the venue, I try to create the sense of a conversation with the audience — as though they and I are both revealing the information for the first time, at the same time.
Wardrobe
I own a half-dozen cosmically themed vests and another 100+ cosmically themed ties. Among them, I’m more likely to be seen in only two of the vests and about adozen of the ties, they being my favorites. In large theater performance venues, I often remove my shoes. I can move more nimbly on the stage, but I also do so as a matter of silent respect for the countless performers — singers, dancers, musicians – who have previously sanctified the stage with their artistic talents.
Q&A
My favorite part of any talk is the Q&A, where I get to learn what people are thinking. My first and third books are entirely Q&A, so I’ve been doing it for awhile:
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/buy/books/merlins-tour-of-the-universe
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/buy/books/just-visiting-this-planet
Learning what people think after my talks formed a crucial point of awareness for me before the era of Twitter. Now, via that social medium, I learn people’s thoughts and reactions to what I say almost instantly. But I still welcome a session of one-on-one exchanges with an audience. I invest huge energy in this capacity to communicate with a demographically diverse audience: e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB-11B9PtBM
Content
My talks are a blend of facts, ideas, and perspectives. I care primarily that the audience becomes empowered with new tools of seeing and understanding the physical universe, and enjoys new ways those tools can inform decisions in the socio-political world, whatever your political leanings may be.
I do not speak from notes. So, depending on the time of day, the recent news cycle of current events, and the leanings, humor, and enthusiasm of the audience, I will be creating what I say on the spot. The scaffold is there. The words I use to clad it are unique to the moment. So when I get calls from hosts who ask, “Please send the talk in advance.” My reply is, “My talk is the talk. It does not exist before I give it.”
A Case Study: Quoting George W. Bush
For a talk I give on the rise and fall of science in human cultural history I occasionally paraphrase President George W. Bush from one of his speeches, remarking that our God is the God who named the stars, and immediately noting that 2/3 of all star-names in the night sky are Arabic. I use this fact to pivot from the present-day, back to a millennium ago, during the Golden Age of Islam, in which major advances in math, science, engineering, medicine, and navigation were achieved. The Bush reference is not written on my PowerPoint slides, which I keep sparse, but I remembered it from a speech he gave after September 11, 2001. And I presented it that way, as Bush’s attempt to distinguish “we” from ‘they.” When eager scrutinizers looked for the quote they could not find it, and promptly accused me of fabricating a Presidential sentence. Lawyers are good at this. They find something that you get wrong, and use it to cast doubt on everything else you say. Blogosphere headlines followed, with accusations of me being a compulsive liar and a fabricator.
What followed fascinated me greatly. As others had uncovered, the President indeed utter the following sentences:
In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.” The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.
But I was wrong about when he said it. It appears in his speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster, eighteen months after September 11th 2001. My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia. I have no excuse for this, other than both events– so close to one another — upset me greatly. In retrospect, I’m surprised I remembered any details from either of them.
Of course, very little changes in that particular talk. I will still mention Islamic Extremists flying planes into buildings in the 21st century. I will still contrast it with the Golden Age of Islam a millennium earlier. And I will still mention the President’s quote. But instead, I will be the one contrasting what actually happened in the world with what the Bible says: The Arabs named the stars, not Yahweh.
Why I Give Public Talks
If I were to rank the top twenty things I love to do, giving public talks would not make the cut. What does? Doing scientific research. Writing books. Playing with my kids. Having a play-date with my wife. Eating homemade very-buttery popcorn while watching a movie curled up on the couch with the family. Reading antiquarian science books. Taking notes for my next book with quill and fountain pens by candlelight. Attending Broadway plays and musicals. Listening to jazz and classical music. Drinking malted milkshakes. Cooking dinners that are fancier than the day of the week deserves. Drinking a bottle of wine that is just a little more expensive than can be realistically justified. And cooking & eating waffles for breakfast. e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/photoshopbattles/comments/28yjr2/neil_degrasse_tyson_making_himself_a_waffle/
I nonetheless continue give talks because, knowing what I know about the physical universe – and our place within it – I’d be socially irresponsible if I did not.
Respectfully Submitted
Neil deGrasse Tyson, New York City
As noted by gussnarp, Tyson did every one of the things you suggest he do. Maybe you disagree with the length of the post and the fact that it contains other things, rake him over the coals for that. When you say “Here’s how it should go:” it sounds like what follows are your responses to the points you raised, not Tyson’s responses, which they are.
I fail to see how admitting a mistake, apologizing, and stating unequivocally that he will strive not to do it again supports your contention it is a “dodge” or “gives more ammunition to the critic”.
Oh man, that headline scared me. I was worried he had done something actually bad, like, to another person. Misattributing a quote, followed by couching his complete apology (I think everything ypu asked for is actually in there) in slightly defensive and grandiloquent terms? Yeahhhh that’s ok I really can’t be bothered to care. I’m sure I’ve done the same. And really, surely the haters are gonna hate regardless.
Y’all are going to be in so much trouble as soon as PZ remembers that nobody is allowed to disagree with him here.
@Naked Bunny with a Whip: We’ve got a little time, I think he’s in class.
He could say: Thank you for pointing that out to me. I was wrong, and retract that comment.
Or he’ll go with the tentacled wrath.
Warning: Random thoughts ahead!
There does, though, seem to be this bizarre thinking in our society that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness, which is a bad thing. So, it can lead to this thinking, “You don’t want to be seen as weak, do you? Well, then you’d better not admit to making a mistake!”
Actually, PZ’s been showing posts these last couple of days of creationists pointing out Darwin’s flawed thinking, as if that somehow impacts the theory of evolution. So maybe it’s not just weakness. Making mistakes somehow causes one to lose all credibility.
But I’m generalizing here. There are going to be people, like many of us that read this blog, that are better than this. We’ll stand up for those who admit mistakes, am I right? (Looking at those defending Tyson, that seems like a “Yes.”)
With that, I don’t see this problematic mentality going away as long as people keep playing into it.
Wait, NDT remembered something wrong?
I’m pretty sure the only people anywhere who are going to give that a second thought are the people who already refuse to listen to anything he has to say.
@6 – Yeah, I was just glad to hear that it wasn’t something from the Dawkins/Shermer/Krauss hole of idiocy.
This means he still may be a good person. Especially if this is the worst he ever does.
No, it deprives Cpt. Obvious of his hard-earned job. It really goes without saying.
…except for Duane Gish, in which case it was pointless anyway.
Yeah, geez PZ, you must be a tough grader. I give NDT’s apology an A-, maybe a B+ at the very worst. He was a little grouchy and defensive when introducing the plaint, but he ultimately cops to it and admits his fault without qualification. That’s pretty good, really; better than average to be sure. Is it perfect? No, but… yeah, tough grader :p
The federalist? Now I need a shower.
Bill Nye just said something that isn’t provably wrong (not yet, at least), but strikes me as a hopelessly naive prediction:
In another 20 years [Creationists] will be out of business
He just seems to have a blind spot when it comes to creationists, as evidenced by his willingness to be used by Ken Ham as a fundraising tool.
Or, when you make an erroneous statement such as “Karl Rove, who is, by the way, an atheist?” and somebody points it out in the comments “Karl Rove disagrees. Time to let that myth go, and good riddance.” You could just go `yeah, but imagine if I was right`.
PZ Myers
15 September 2014 at 8:55 am
Imagine a Karl Rove, a person with his political sensibilities who is also an atheist. The question still works.
And then you could ignore all stuff about memory and being infallible and stuff.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/15/zeteticon-and-atheist-politics/#more-20619
The real goof is that this was first pointed out some years ago, with correct attribution, and it took him this long to get it together. But it’s hardly something we can’t soon forgive, so long as he learns to recognise and own such errors in the future. At least it was a fairly trivial one, and while it did go on for a while, it hardly escalated at all in that time.
Tyson may have fibbed, but to me misquoting a president is the least problematic thing he could do.
So what have we learned from this? If you pay attention to what a year old shitty little conservative outlet very few people are aware of says about someone who is of national prominence and go so far as to fuck with their wikipedia page, it will eventually get picked up by WaPo and all of a sudden it’s not a year old shitty little conservative outlet very few people are aware of anymore. It’s a year shitty little conservative outlet that just got a ton of free publicity. Congrats, everyone.
I’m not disputing the description of The Federalist as a year-old shitty little conservative outlet, but I’ve actually found some of its articles to be more thought-provoking than most other conservative outlets. Maybe that’s just grading on a curve though. Is that place prominent enough that anyone has bothered to refute the things they say? Are there any non-shitty conservative outlets?
Fallout? Tarnished star? Really?
This is such a non-issue. Handwringing over one minor quote and then whining about Tyson accurately explaining WHY he made that mistake, and what his mistake actually was, instead of simply saying “I was wrong”.
Before I read below the fold, I thought Neil Degrasse Tyson was accused of sexual harassment, or rape, or abuse, or being a sexist or bigoted asshat of some flavor. But, no, he misremembered the context of a quote he was paraphrasing from 12 years ago and then explained that was what he did instead of just prostrating himself and begging for mercy.
Serious fucking business.
I dare say that PZ is doin’ it for the page views!
I read about this on the Daily Kos a couple of days ago. The writer there called it the Al Gorification of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. The science deniers have picked apart and ridiculed everything that Al Gore has ever said and done so that they can deny anything that he says now about global climate change.
NDT scares the shit out of them. He has had the temerity to speak scientific truth about everything that they have tried to deny – from evolution to climate change to some hard truths about religion, and he has dared to do so while being an educated black man. Naturally, they are going to nitpick anything he has ever said, and if they can find one thing wrong, it will give them the excuse to say that anything else he says is wrong.
*Whew*
That headline gave me a physical feeling of dread. Often the criticisms of heroes in atheism/science on this blog tend to be much more severe. I didn’t want to hear that another influential person has abusive behaviors or bigoted view points. And, speaking for myself only, I don’t think it’s because I want to heroize (which also dehumanizes) NDT, but I do want to support people who have a positive influence on the world. I definitely don’t consider abusive or bigoted people to be positive, so I’m quite relieved that I can still support NDT as a science educator who seems to be using his influence to make a positive impact on the world, even though he is imperfect, like all of us.
***
After reading the full statement, I also agree with others that the OP was a bit harsh, but I do see the value in beginning an apologetic statement with, ya know, the apology part. It would have been better if he left out the complaint about bloggers.
We need to know. Do we get oops or tentacled wrath?
The only thing that bothers me is claimimgs blogs are calling him a cumpulsive liar. Citation needed. That is almost a Dawkins “witch hunt ” kind of claim. If it was just a little exaggeration, he should know how that sounds to bloggers accused of being professional victims.
Good post PZ. It is easy to get defensive even when we are acknowledging our mistakes.
Meh… I too expected something much worse.
After all of the atheists and scientists who have proven to be terrible, bigoted people over the last couple years, I have a list of people I still support that I’m also rather afraid of (poor way to phrase that, and is an overstatement, but it’s 12:28am, I’m extremely exhausted, and so my brain isn’t functioning well enough to come up with better wording… sorry):
Bill Nye
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Leonard Susskind
Stephen Hawking
Tim Minchin
And that’s just five off the top of my head (and yes, note that all are men and four are white).
So this was my actual time-line of reactions to this:
*Open email, see title* – O… kay. Looks interesting.
*Read stuff before the jump* – Oh. Oh no. Please no. Not Neil. Please not Neil. Please please please don’t let him have gone the way of Richard Dawkins, or worse, Michael Shermer. Please please please…
*Read everything after the jump* – Oh. Well… that’s it? *huge sigh of relief*
Yeah… maybe I’m jaded, but this one really doesn’t bother me all that much. And after reading his full statement, I kind of have to agree with jamessweet at #14… PZ, you are tough-as-hell grader. I feel like NdT said everything you said he should say. So maybe he couched it in a little bit rancor. He is human, after all, and he is also right, to be fair. That’s a very common tactic used by science-denialists and their lawyers.
So… I don’t know… not that big of a deal.
And at least he hasn’t proven to be sexist or been outed as a harasser or rapist… yet…
He’s still safe to support.
@bigwhaleIs – FrontPage Magazine for example has a story called, “Neil deGrasse Tyson a Compulsive Liar?” It answers in the affirmative. A blog on the WP is titled, “Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?” The Federalist states that Tyson’s behavior is that of a, “dishonest hack who should never be trusted.” FrontPage also adds for good measure, “Carl Sagan, the man Tyson succeeded on Cosmos, was also a compulsive fraduster and self-promoter.” The Tampa Tribune has a piece called, “Neil deGrasse Tyson, serial fabulist” and states that NDT, “seems to have only a nodding acquaintance with the truth” and routinely pretzels quotes and creates “outright fabrications.” There are a multitude of other articles and blog posts you can find through a simple search. And the comment sections are naturally worse.
As anteprepro above says, PZ, you’re not really good at blowing those “totally baseless” insinuations, that certain bloggers *cough* are clickbaiting, out of the water. Sad post. Perhaps next you can find evidence that Sam Harris left an empty toilet paper roll at someone else’s house.
tarnished star</blockquote?
Okay that's just silly.
As is my attempted quote.
Felix
I somehow get the impression that we don’t actually agree with each other, Felix. First, because you seem to think that the clickbaiting accusations actually are accurate and serious (I tend to think they are neither). And second, and especially, because your final sentence insinuates that PZ doesn’t have legitimate and serious criticisms of Harris. Which is false. Nice try though.
As to being afraid it was something worse, I guess I felt a twinge of that from the headline, but quickly assumed it wasn’t. I don’t know if I could handle that. I don’t always agree with Tyson, I do think he blew this one at the outset with denial, but overall, I have a lot of respect for him and I just really want to believe he’s the man I think he is. I wasn’t all that shocked about the big stars, partly because I don’t really pay that much attention to them. Krauss has been the most disappointing for me, mainly because I’d like him to just be a cantankerous physicist hammering away at others’ silliness, not an apologist for awful behavior (I don’t even recall if he’s personally accused of any). I was pretty surprised by Dawkins’ Dear Muslima, count me among those reading the thread in real time and wondering if it could possibly be him. I recall hearing or reading something he said that was a really good explanation of privilege and why we have to watch out for it and work to include women (I may be confabulating) and I just can’t reconcile the statement as I recall it with his recent statements and his offhand jabs at women on Twitter. But still, not that shocked. I think some of the rumors of “big names” had me prepared to learn even worse about him.
But Tyson? I just don’t think I could take it. I can’t imagine much that would shock me and cause more disbelief other than maybe Phil Plait. If Phil Plait is ever revealed as anything other than a golden boy, I will be very put out.
So my posts are showing up, now?
Huh…
I’ve got to wonder how much he has to go into defensive mode on a regular basis.
Anyone remember that video where he talked about how he and a white guy were
leaving a store when the door alarm went off, and they only stopped him?
I would like to see NDT use this to stress importance of the scientific method in light of the fallibility of human memory.
I think his apology is fine and I don’t think he did anything wrong anyways. Human beings, whatever their qualifications, are very fallible. Jesus Fucking A. Christ, I’m tired of all this rhetorical and moral purity around here!
chimera
That’s great. To take a page from others who don’t give a shit about “moral purity”: “If you don’t like it, leave”
I see very little wrong with his apology. I had a bit more issue with some parts of his initial response to Sean Davis on Facebook:
He was even essentially right that the quote was out there somewhere, but I think he was placing too much trust in the accuracy of his memory when he said “I assure you…”. There are many studies which show how frequently our brains will alter or fabricate details of memory so I try to say, “I’m pretty confident in that memory but I know how flawed our brains are as recording devices. If it turns out I’m wrong, thanks for the correction.”
Here’s a link to NDT’s entire response. Partial Anatomy of My Public Talks. My main beef with his response to the ‘fabrication’ accusation is that he shouldn’t have buried it in a big general post about his talks. The specific accusation had enough traction (I initially found it after looking up Adam Baldwin on Twitter to see what he was spewing about GamerGate) that, in my opinion, padding his response with an overview of how and why he gives talks takes away from his acceptance of his error.
Also, his comment of “In retrospect, I’m surprised I remembered any details from either of them.” is not consistent with his previous “I assure you.” The reality is somewhere in the middle, we remember many details of events but a good portion of them are wrong; especially for traumatic events.
So yeah, I wouldn’t say my impression of Neil deGrasse Tyson is particularly tarnished, given that I was already aware that he’s human. I don’t think he did anything unethical, he just should have been a bit more straightforward in acknowledging his error. In real life, there are no perfect heroes. For me, this is excusable minor defensiveness compared to some other recent events that I won’t get into.
P.S. I found it amusing that this is Sean Davis’ defense for Bush talking about God:
While it wasn’t actually a comparison to Muslims, only a Christian could see that as an unifying statement. Does he know for a fact that all of the astronauts and their families were Christian? Especially given their careers in science, there’s a pretty good chance that they weren’t.
Clarification, Sean Davis’ defense of Bush’s God-speak was in a previous post from Sept 16, accusing Neil deGrasse Tyson of fabricating quotes.
His apology was fine. Neil deserves an apology. PZ If you’re not sure how to proceed this should help:
“Thank you for pointing that out to me.
A brief explanation is appropriate.
Admit and apologize.
I was wrong, and retract that comment.”
I hope you’re big enough to take your own advice.
PZ is mortal too. It’s okay, so am I.
It is a lot easier to own up to a mistake if you do it BEFORE anyone else catches you on it. Then you’re awesome. Otherwise, you might have to face up to the notion that you aren’t so awesome. No one can handle that, nobody.